Friends of the Rail Forum

A discussion point (and pics to illustrate it) made by the photographer, Dennis Mitchell:

Just a couple of shots, taken in 1985, that I think shows the benefits of owning your own line.

1. In the first instance we have a Southern Railway 4-6-0 of the King Arthur class, "Sir Lamiel" number 841, on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, near Grosmount, in near authentic condition of pre B.R. days (1948) .

2. The second shot is of N.G. 15 number 124 on the "Apple Express", as part of the "Trans Cape Limited" 10-day tour put on by the R.S.S.A. in April 1985. The train is just out of Hankey on the Patensie branch.

While I know Britain has lots of volunteers and government handouts to help in the scheme of things, but I can't help thinking that the sooner that South Africans can get a franchise to work some of these lines, the better off they will be. I believe that the Patensie branch is now closed. What a great little branch to run trains on! With the right advertising and a little "loco" at Loerie (or Gamtoos), it could be another "Puffing Billy" (the famous Australian preserved 2ft 6in railway). It is close to a big population centre (P.E.) and, if possible, some of the locos from Humewood Road could be restored away from the sea air at possibly Patensie.
What is the plight of number 124 these days? What does H.R.A.S.A. think?

I think I was on that same steam safari when they ran the line. Preservation here seems to be more successfull in photo content than the real thing!!

South Africans only care about prservation, if they personaly can gain out of it. In other wordssome of us want to be standing in a pub, and be told by others how good we have been in preserving x or y.

In the meantime we have lost the whole idea about prservation and keeping any old object from been dumped.

I was involved in a number of enthusiast groups, and frankly in South Africa they are somewhat of a dieing breed. New blood does not come in, the same people get into committees and rule them as their own personal fiefdom. Its bad enough we have a shortage of skilled workers, there are even less willing ones, many members are just armchair enthusiasts who pay their $ and sit back and hope that the place doesnt fall down.
Somebody once said to me, the biggest problem we have is our weather. Its way too good for people to be working on preserving a large lump of steel or wood. They were correct, and sadly the situation will not change.
I hope though that the few real enthusiasts will continue their good work, and that occasionally new ones will be found to fill the gaps. Because if we dont then I am afraid all we labour for today will be lost forever tomorrow.

One contrast between preservation in the UK and South Africa is the number of enthusiasts, as Franzois and Derek note. Last time I spent a whole year in UK (1995) I volunteered on the Dean Forest Railway. The DFR has close to a thousand members, of whom I believe more than 60 are regular "working" members. A South African club such as FOTR appears to have a much higher percentage of working members, but unfortunately a high percentage of 30 or 40 is still much less than a low percentage of 1,000!

However another big difference, at least for a club like FOTR, is that we run on the national rail network, whereas most British heritage operations own their own line. There are many advantages to owning your own line. You are in control of operations and setting priorities. You can get derogation from certain rail safety regulations due to the low speed limit on the line. You can choose the ambience and historical period of the line and make everything match. FOTR would dearly love to be able to operate on the Magaliesberg line, in cooperation with Damrail, under these sort of conditions.

On the other hand, for the footplate crew at least, there is something special about being able to operate a real train on a real railway network, taking instructions from CTC, mixing in with the electric and diesel traction, crossing long freight trains, turning out through complicated junctions with arrays of signalling, experiencing different conditions and gradients, dealing with the unexpected, hauling quite heavy trains, and making relatively long trips at speed. Magical! Compare this to operating a small tank loco with three coaches up and down on the same 2 km stretch of track day in and day out working under "one engine in steam" rules.

John, a great explanation, valid on all counts!
There is one additional aspect that I think you forgot to mention and that is an apparent stark difference in corporate (and govermental) culture here compared with, for example, the UK. Although perhaps this is beginning to apply in the UK too, these days.
In days gone by, the senior management (and owners) in most organisations had worked there for a considerable time, and worked their way up the ranks. They would have an affinity, a notalgia, for the old ways, they "grew up" with it and empathise with those wanting to preserve it.
Today's corporate suits have no such empathy. They joined the organisation last week, 5 years out of 'varsity, have no corporate history, have a 2-year bonus-related contract tied to a sweeping promise to make big profits. Anything that stands in the way of the bonus and their perceived step on ladder to the next big deal is swept aside as sentimental trash. The nett result is a loss of sympathetic environment and funding in which preservation can take place and a feeling of dispair and pointlessness on the part of preservationalists. This drives all but the hard-core enthusiasts out of the movement.
John uses as a point, the Magaliesburg line. Here is a case in the flesh: very competant and willing preservationalists wanted to create a heritage line and small business out of this stunning old asset. But the "powers that be" were unsympatheitc, were not interested and simply let it die, to the point that today, resurrecting that line as a heritage environment would probably not be economically possible - certainly without public funding which, catch-22, is not forthcoming.
QED.

Hi Steve - what you have just said is very true, just hope that in the future all the names since the great Dr. J H G Laubscher will be be available to put in the history books of the ones who let the railway go down. If only FTOR could have been there when he held the reins.

Steve wrote:Although perhaps this is beginning to apply in the UK too, these days

Sadly, Steve, I think that's true. After the fiasco of Railtrack, one of the problems that was publicly identified was that the new privatised railway was being run by people with a business or economics background, not by people with a railway or engineering background. I believe that was righted to some extent when private Railtrack morphed into public Network Rail. One might say the same about some of the train operating companies. Most seem to be owned by bus companies or airlines, so while one might argue that at least they have some transport expertise, running trains may not be their only priority.

Hi Adelbert. Indeed. However in those old days preservationist organisations along the lines of today's FOTR were absolutely not necessary. The old railways institution had a sense of social and corporate responsibility and did it all. What we as FOTR do today was not even conceived.

To emphasise that point, a discussion took place at last night's FOTR board meeting regarding attracting and keeping membership. Our chairman, in a not so mad moment, made the point that FOTR has evolved away from the purely social club it once was - where the club meetings centred around things like showing pictures, movies, talks, etc. FOTR has necessarily been transformed from a social club that rented steam trains (without any responsibility - Spoornet did all the work) into a real fully-fedged working business, that has to take care of a myriad of financial, marketing, operational, technical and safety responsibilities and issues related to running our own trains for the paying public out on the complex national network.

We have lost the time as club management to spend on socialising with members. We now have so many issues on our plates that, in some respects, satisfying members has become too low a priority. Not intentional, certainly not desireable but true nonetheless. We, as board members, are dealing on a daily basis with the ever more complex ways of running the business in an environment where legislative and inter-relational issues are difficult and onerous and are changing fast. Unfortunately the dwindling numbers of members in the preservation movement in SA and with it, the pool of volunteers, is worrying because employing paid staff is not considered a viable option for us as a somewhat stressed heritage operation.

Compounding this is the fact that many members have joined FOTR for the socal scene, possibly to do some light work relating to running trains and above all, have fun. Today, we need members to do hardwork as well, to take serious corporate responsibility, and not many out there are willing to consider what we do as fun anymore.

To make money to preserve trains, we have to run paying trains for the public to enjoy. To run such trains costs money: money that must be recouped profitably out of the fares. Also to run trains we have to satisfy the requirements of many orgainsations, from TFR, through the Rail Safety Regulator, to our landlords, etc, etc. To cease running trains means to cease running the club and that, in turn, would mean an end to our preservation efforts.The circle we have created and manage would be broken for ever.

As a not unrelated example on the issues we now face that we never had to in the past:
We need to open another bank account for marketing purposes. In terms of the new regulations, the bank requires endless documentation; documentation that must be certified by the companies office (CIPRO as that is now called). Our treasurer has just spent many almost fruitless hours of personal time in queues at CIPRO's offices, filling forms and waiting and waiting just to get certified copies of documentation. He describes that office as being organisationally worse than Home Affairs! Does he now have the time to deal with members as well? Do any of us?

To add to what John has said:

However another big difference, at least for a club like FOTR, is that we run on the national rail network, whereas most British heritage operations own their own line.

I think that in the UK many volunteers are working on a model railway - albeit a full-scale model railway. FOTR does not operate a full scale model railway. FOTR operates a full scale railway! Very different.

Steve wrote:a sense of social and corporate responsibility

Steve, I don't want to get into a political debate, but I think many in South Africa (certainly many with whom I worked in the South African church) would be quite stunned to hear any apartheid-era state institution being described as having "a sense of social and corporate responsibility". I think I know what you mean - that they had a feel for their history and heritage, that they were not driven purely by profit but by other factors, that the regulatory system and management culture were looser and allowed more freedom for managers to use their initiative and take decisions, etc - but I think the choice of words was a little unfortunate given the big picture.

And similarly, the implication that today's railway institution in South Africa does not have "a sense of social and corporate responsibility" is also a bit dodgy. They have a different sense to what you and I might wish, and we might well query the effectiveness of their strategy, but I suspect they are trying to be responsible to the taxpayers and to their mandate as they understand it.

Much as we might wish it to be different, whether or not a state railway company supports heritage operations is not really a measure of its sense of social and corporate responsibility.

John, I do understand what you are saying and agree that maybe I was too narrow in definition of corporate and social reponsibility. I have to admit growing up in the old order. However, I was referring specifically to the rail heritage environment.

Indeed you are right. Transnet does have a different, modern social reponsibility program that includes, for example, the very important Phelophepa Health Train. Today's PRASA under its own initiative and with support by goverment is seriously improving the passenger rail services for the population at large that previously, unless you were white, lingered in darkness under the old regime.

However, it is a fact that that responsibility program hardly includes what we define as rail heritage. The very opposite actually. Transnet is currently keeping the door firmly closed on any new tourism or heritage rail opportunities. That attitude which limits any possibility of adding value to the area where they are to run and, directly or indirectly, restricts new tourism and rail employment openings might make business sense to Transnet but is certainly not corporately reponsible in the social sense, old order or new order.

An example of "social and corporate responsibility" in the UK rail industry (although one has to admit that this is from the Daily Mail, a right-wing tabloid, so there's no guarantees!):

Fury as pretty 19th century railway bridge is rebuilt using red brick by 'penny pinching' rail firm

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:19 PM on 11th August 2009

Furious parishioners have accused rail chiefs of penny pinching after they rebuilt half of a historic traditional stone railway bridge - using modern red brick instead.

When part of pretty 19th century Trewannion bridge was demolished in a car accident in June this year, residents of Lesnewth in Cornwall, assumed it would be rebuilt using traditional Cornish stone - in keeping with the opposite side of the structure.

But the company that owns the bridge, BRB (Residuary) Ltd, a subsidiary of Network Rail, had other ideas and rebuilt the wall in modern red brick.

The company cordoned off the lane for three weeks while work was done - but when residents of the tiny hamlet saw that the new wall of the bridge had been built in red brick, standing in stark contrast to the neutral coloured Cornish stone, they were livid.

Val Gill, 66, who has lived in Lesnewth for 17 years, described the new wall as a 'monstrosity' and is calling for the company to demolish it and start again using Cornish stone.

She said: 'It's sheer vandalism - you can't call it anything else. They haven't cared.

'The rebuild has been carried out in red brick which is completely out of character for Cornwall and particularly this area of North Cornwall, where brick is unknown as traditional building material.

'It has ruined the whole character of the bridge - it's horrendous and is an absolute eyesore.

'We were just absolutely staggered at the horrendous sight.

'We just stood there and we couldn't believe what they had done - it's so out of character.

'The new wall doesn't match the wall on the other side of the road and it looks dreadful.

'BRB has used red brick simply because it is a cheaper material.

'I'd say about 99.9 per cent of people around here are upset about the matter.'

Although the railway line was closed down as part of the deeply unpopular Beeching cuts during the 1960s, the bridge and road are still owned and maintained by BRB.

Mrs Gill said: 'We weren't even consulted about what BRB were planning to do - they just went ahead and did it.

'I wrote to BRB, as did other people, and their reply was 'we have done it as cheaply as possible'.'

She added that nobody had been able to see the bridge as it was being built because the lane had been blocked while construction work was taking place.

'A farmer did go up and down out of necessity and it did go round that there was some red brick.

'No one took any notice because on the old bridge there was some red brick as a decorative finish on top, but we presumed it would be made in Cornish stone.'

Mrs Gill, a housewife, approached Cornwall Council about the matter who said they were also unhappy with the repair work but said 'their hands were tied because the bridges are governed by the 1845 Railways Act'.

'But we say even if this act applies surely it would be polite to contact the planning department.

'It would have been basic good manners to have done that.'

Charlie David, Cornwall Council operations manager for the environment, said he had contacted BRB and was waiting for a response.

'The bridge is not protected in any way under legislation, but nevertheless, it's an important element of the Cornish heritage and landscape.

'Cornwall Council recognises the importance of maintaining features of heritage value within the outstanding landscape of the county and encourages owners to adopt a sympathetic approach to their maintenance.

'We have written to BRB Residuary Ltd, the owners of these structures, expressing our concern over the policy they appear to have adopted for the maintenance of historic structures for which they have a responsibility and are awaiting a response from them.'

A spokesman for BRB would not comment on whether cost had been an issue in using red brick instead of Cornish stone.

He said the company would be discussing the matter with the council.

He added:'We are well aware of the concerns local residents have about the wall.

'The situation at present is that we are seeking talks with Cornwall Council to resolve the issue.'

John Linington, 77, a retired chartered surveyor and land agent, said that he was annoyed that the company had knocked down the wall rather than repair the damage in the middle of it.

He called for the wall to be knocked down and rebuilt in the traditional style.

Mr Linington said that he had also written to the company and been told that financial considerations had been a factor.

'They knocked some of it down - that makes it worse - there was just a hole in the middle,' he said.

'I wrote along the lines that it was irresponsible - that it had no regard for the fact that in this particular area we are very proud of our landscape.'

Mr Linington said that following the Boscastle floods, residents in the area and the local council had made an effort to restore buildings using traditional materials.

'They have a moral obligation to put back what was there,' Mr Linington said.

'What I and everyone else is after is to take the goddamn thing down and rebuild it.'

Steve Appleton wrote: Transnet does have a different, modern social reponsibility program that includes, for example, the very important Phelophepa Health Train

You are 100% Steve, of course Transnet shifted their whole focus from a state-owned all mode transport parastatal to a modern, public company. The Transnet Foundation gets most of Transnet's R80million grant towards worthy causes in educatino, the arts, sports and in the area of primary health care. They are much prouder of their Phelophepa train that they call their "miracle health train". Of course this award-winning train which also acts as a training facility for hundreds of medical students provides a wide range of medical services including dental and eye care plus counselling. During its 35-week annual journey throughout the country it reaches more than 45 000 patients. Transnet, Government and the private sector has partnered up to bring Phelophepa II into life, it is now due to be commissioned in 2011.

Something that is lesser known is the Transnet / SAFA Soccer School of Excellence in Elandsfontein. As the name suggests the focus is primarily on soccer, but academic and life skills are also attended to. They currently have two graduates in the national squad and Steven Pienaar, also a graduate of the school is a regular for the English Premier League club Everton. He starred for his team at the coveted finals of the FA Cup – the oldest and arguably the most prestigious tournament at club level – in May 2009.

They also provide end-of-life containers as homes to people living from the remote Village of Perth in Kgalagadi, to the Vhembe District in the Limpopo Province.

Regarding the heritage / tourist opportunities, Transnet wants to leave that part over to the private sector to handle, yes, they make life very difficult for operators, but I hear that it will soon change. The George - Mosselbay service will also be 'given' to a succesfull bidder to continue the work on heritage services there. Transnet will keep the Museum as part of the whole social responsibility idea.

Forgot to add that TF won two awards for its attempts during the year: 2009 awards
United Nations Public Service Award for “Improving Service Delivery” for the Phelophepa Health train.
Recognition in the Mail & Guardian “Investing in the Future” programme (Rural and Farm Schools programme)

The Transnet Foundation has the following three broad categories for donations and
sponsorships:
Projexts that are aligned with the Foundation's CSI focus areas of education, health, sports, containerised assistance and arts and culture;
Projects that are aligned with Transnet's mandate to preserve rail heritage; and
Projects that provide compelling corporate social investment but fall outside of the scope of the Foundation's portfolio focus areas.

Also, during a discussion with someone that knows, there is a difference between knowingly stopping maintenance on your infrastructure like station buildings and just not doing it because your are negligent. Transnet took the first route...